Hello everyone! I've been reading that CR2 is the Raw image file and it looks duller and flatter than the JPG. But am I missing something or the files created by my 70D are the opposite? The JPG looks the flatter one. This is the CR2 file: JPG here: Is it because I have Cinestyle as the selected picture style? Thank you.
Yes, RAW will not be processed in camera, not even sharpening. It assumes you will tweak to your flavor in post production. JPG will have a variety of processing in camera based on your profiles and settings.
TMC, I have a question what is your goal here regarding shooting? You clearly have been able to use both RAW and JPG? I do not know your comfort level with processing or what you goal is. If your question was simply to compare output, that was my feedback that you got what I would expect based on how RAW and JPG work. I did not suggest anything further as I am not sure what your goals are or comfort level with processing files. If you want to shoot photo styles in camera on JPG that is fine, but keep in mind jpg is a compressed image format and degrades, you have limits to how far you can push it in a photo editor. Your style you used has a very muted color palette so it looks the way I would expect. The RAW file is showing exactly what the camera saw with the lighting that was there and the color temperature that was set by you or the camera (likely the camera on auto) . So it does look more saturated than that specific style, but more importantly RAW is like a negative which will not degrade because you don't keep saving and compressing it down, edits are saved outside of the raw file; it also has the ability to pull a lot of information out of it that you can't in JPG. A good example of this is if you try to pull in shadow or highlight detail in RAW vs JPG. They both have their place, JPG comes in handy if you don't need to edit much and just want fast output and minimal storage space.
